Supreme Court victory for terrorists, liberals

| | Comments (14) | TrackBacks (0)

Terrorists and their supporters in the U.S. just won a significant victory in the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hamden case.

Background from the liberal sympathizers' viewpoint here.

Current discussion here.

UPDATE: Good discussion at I'll be interested in getting NR's take on this when he gets back, but it seems like this decision could result in less prisoners being taken (read that however you wish).

UPDATE II: Some intelligent discussion here. Slightly less intelligent, here.

UPDATE III: Needless to say, Glenn Reynolds has some interesting links; in particular this take from the counterterrorism blog declaring the decision a 'gift' to the Bush administration.

UPDATE IV: Our alert commenters have pointed out my blanket insinuation "liberals support terrorists" is not entirely true. For the record, I do not believe every single liberal in the whole wide world supports every single terrorist. Such a statement would be plain silly. For instance, I have no idea what any liberal thinks about the Tamil Tigers.

What I should have said was "Islamic terrorists and their supporters in the U.S...": because these have a common enemy, which puts them in many ways on the same "team," because as everyone knows Islamic terrorism, to the extent it even exists, was caused by George W. Bush. This began when Yasser Arafat and others - witnessing the bureaucratic largesse that enabled George W. Bush to skate by with light duty in the Air National Guard, accurately predicted the ease with which Bush would later steal the U.S. presidency and coax leaders of both parties to support an unjustified war in Iraq - formed the Black September group which erupted onto the world stage at the 1972 Munich Olympics. The process continued in the early 1990s when Osama bin Laden - observing the effectiveness with which Texas Rangers Managing General Partner George W. Bush compelled the people of Arlington to foot the bill for a new stadium, accurately predicted that Bush would later convince the American people to support an unjustified war in Iraq - became radicalized. This short sentence is included here for reasons of style. But while I think there is evidence of liberal support for Islamic terrorists, I do not think it is unqualified support in the sense that I think most liberals believe that when George W. Bush is no longer president, Islamic terrorism will disappear from the Earth, except maybe in the occupied portions of Palestine, where it serves a needed purpose. I apologize for the sweeping generalization of my initial post, and I hope this explanation clarifies everything so that our liberal commenters and I are now on the same page. Thank you.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Supreme Court victory for terrorists, liberals.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


zimzo said:

At first I thought your headline was meant to be parody. Then I realized you were serious and it made me wonder, Why do conservatives hate America so much? Why do you so distrust the Constitution and the system of government the Founding Fathers set up, the principles, ideas and ideals that make this country great? Do you believe that our country and our system of government is so weak tht we have to toss out the Constitution, which is very clear in saying that no one can be imprisoned without due process? Is our system of government so flawed that you believe a few men, whom you hilariously lable "activist judges" can so easily hijack it? What exactly are we fighting for if not the principles enshrined in our Constitution? Perhaps you would be more comfortable living in a country where they don't have due process, a Bill of Rights, an independent judiciary, checks and balances and all of these other inconveniences of liberty. Here's what I say to people like you who seem to hate America so much: America--love it or leave it.

Correction: I think all the benefits of our system of government you've listed apply to citizens, not enemy combatants.

If all of the latter have to be channeled into our legal system and supplied with public defenders, and U.S. military personnel are forced to appear in court to testify as to the circumstances of capture and detainment, I suspect we're setting up a scenario contrary to what makes this country great. We're setting up a scenario which favors this country's enemies.

Gnossis said:

Supreme Court victory for terrorists, liberals
Terrorists and their supporters in the U.S. just won...

Am I correct in understanding that you're equating "liberals" with "terrorist supporters?"

If so, can you provide some sort of proof of "liberals" actively supporting terrorist activities to such an extent that one can lump the majority of "liberals" into such a category?


How interesting you feel it necessary to qualify your question - "the majority of 'liberals'".

I'll admit, you've put me on thin ice with that. I may not be able to gather evidence sufficient to indict more than 49% of them.

If you want "proof" I'm afraid you're going to have to wait till the workday is over. Between google and the Wayback Machine, this will be a fun diversion, but it's a rich, rich vein to be mined.

zimzo said:

So are you suggesting, Joe, that any person residing in the United States who is not a citizen can be arrested and imprisoned indefinitely without trial or access to counsel at any time. Can you tell me what the legal precedent is for that? Are you suggesting that Americans residing or traveling in any foreign country should also be at risk for being arrested and imprisoned indefinitely without trial or access to counsel or State Department representatives at any time? Are you also saying that the United States is free to ignore any treaty to which it is a signatory including the Geneva Conventions and that other countries are likewise free to ignore treaties they have signed with the United States anytime they feel like it? Is that the kind of world you would like to live in?

zimzo said:

And furthermore the idea that you would equate "liberals" with "terrorists" in any way is a perfect example of how civil discourse has deteriorated in this country to the point that it is truly damaging to our political system.

Gnossis said:


"Interesting," eh? I'm eager to see how many of the nuggets you mine from your vein come from sources with no political bias.

My point is that an inference like "liberals = terrorist supporters" is akin to "mustachioed men = anti-semites."

I don't doubt that you can find someone labeled "liberal" who has also voiced support for terrorists. I'll bet you could also find someone labeled "conservative" who has done the same.

I think you'd agree that in the interest of having an honest and open debate of the issues, statements like this contribute nothing useful to the overall discussion.

Zimzo: Enemy combatants, who in this case wore no uniform nor served at the behest of any sovereign state.

Zimzo and Gnossis: I think liberals initiated the degradation of civil discourse and as a result, many conservatives such as myself became "radicalized." You are both free to disagree with my historical interpretation.

I do not assume that either of you support the Islamic terrorists, but of course I have no evidence in either direction. I'll look forward to hearing other opinions on this matter, which I believe the title of this post will do a better job eliciting, than if I had called it "My liberal friends and I ate cookies under a tree today."

zimzo said:

Where precisely in the Constitution is the "enemy combatant" exception? Where are the procedures outlined for designating who is and who is not an enemy combatant? Theoretically, according to you could the President of the United States decide that Joe Budzinski's arguments are so weak that he represents a danger to the United States and designate you an enemy combatant? Why or why not?

And, by the way, why do you make a distinction between citizens and enemy combatants? The Bush Administration did not make such a distinction in the case of Jose Padilla.

As far as civil discourse goes, I am sorry that you find yourself too weak to resist the onslaught of uncivil discourse perpetrated by liberals so that your only recourse is to wallow in the mud. I guess rising above the imagined misdemeanors of your opponents would be too much to ask.

You are correct about the legal ambiguity. I guess some people's common sense says "lock them up" and others' says "that sets a dangerous precedent." I'm not making value judgment there, just indicating two different ways of looking at the world.

It looks like the ambiguity will be dealt with via legislation.

Uh, I was joking about the reason for my uncivil discourse. Plenty of rocks get thrown around here. I tend to receive more than I give, but deep down inside I'm as bad as all the rest of youse.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

you're kidding, right Joe?

"radicalized" in response to a degradation of the discourse, which you blame on liberals? how is that a reasonable reaction?

"They're trying to confuse things! How can we bring sanity back into the discourse? I know, we'll become extremists!"

perfect, a rationalization of extremism. that's just what this country needs right now.

also, remember Jose Padilla: American citizen.

Puft, yes I was kidding - see the previous comment. I was born radicalized.

I've tried to summon up sympathy for Padilla but have yet to succeed. You and Zimzo are better men than I in that respect.

stay puft marshmallow man said:

do you mean that you don't respect the dude? that's fine. it's just that he's an american citizen so he is entitled to certain rights and protections under the constitution, and all of that liberal bullcrap. do you mean that it's alright to shrug off the constitution if you just don't really care for guy who's losing his rights? you really do hate america, don't you?
in the future, when the 'Ultra-Christian Fundamentalist States of America' throws you in prison for life for using the internet, I'll be in the next cell over saying, "I told you so!" or something to that effect.

Ok this is reminding me of that movie with the two drunk rednecks sitting across from each other banging their beer steins on the table:

Redneck #1: What? You're gonna root for Dale Jarrett when he's drivin' a Toyota? How come you hate America?

Redneck #2: Toyota's factories are all in the U.S. with U.S. workers. Dale Jarrett's a good ol' boy: How come YOU hate America?

Redneck #1: I don't hate America; I LOVE America. Unlike Dale Jarrett, I still drive a f---'in Ford - that's how much I love America!

Redneck #2: If you hate Dale, you hate his pappy Ned, and you hate Mikey Waltrip, and you hate every single American who works for Toyota. That tells me, you hate America...

Redneck #1: Oh you and your Japanese friends can just go f--- yourselves, YOU hate America!

Redneck #2: No YOU f--- YOURSELF because you don't know dick about macroeconomics and YOU hate America!

...and so on...Oh, wait, that's not an actual movie, that's just a figment of my fevered imagination. All of the above is copyright, incidentally, 2006, by Joe Budzinski. Who loves America.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here